Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "sf" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 7 May 2013 19:49:52 -0700, "Julie Bove" > > wrote: > >> Diabetes doesn't "lead to" heart disease. He may have heart problems. I >> don't. Never have. Many diabetics don't. > > Maybe, but maybe you're like governor Christie and an obese person I > know who say they are in perfect health... it doesn't mean it won't > happen. Christie got lap band surgery for his "health"... if he was > still healthy every other way in reality, he wouldn't have done it. > Men are like that. I would never say that I'm in perfect health. Nobody with diabetes could make that claim! > >> It might be said that there is a >> higher percentage of diabetics with heart problems than the general >> population but I don't know that to be true. > > I don't know either, that's what I read recently and I have no reason > to disbelieve it because doctors always tell people to lose weight > even if they are healthy otherwise. Why? Because excess weight leads > to other problems. No Dr. has told me to lose weight. Not ever. But I was told to gain weight when I was severely underweight. And my doing that then would be about as futile as my trying to lose weight now. Recent studies have shown that overweight people live longer than underweight or even normal weight people. I don't think being overweight is a problem or even the lower end of obese. Certainly if one is morbidly obese there can be wear and tear on the joints, the back, etc. I suppose the feet could even take a pounding. But there are plenty of obese people who have no known medical problems. Of course the fact that they are obese might make them not want to go to the Dr. I have seen people say this online. They get sick but fear the Dr. because they think the Dr. will not help them unless they lose weight. > >> Nor do I know it not to be >> true. My friend's dad had heart problems. No diabetes. Same with my >> friend. Same with my grandpa. > > Yes, people can have heart disease and not be overweight. I didn't > say that was the ONLY way people get heart disease. People who have > never been overweight in their lives can have high cholesterol too... > and they won't have heart disease (yet). Yep. > >> But I have a friend of a friend who has >> both. Started with the heart problems. The diabetes was discovered >> about >> 2-3 years later. > > Hubby was "pre" diabetic for decades, had the stents while he was > still being told he was pre-diabetic. So much for that. Okay. >> >> I never limit my fat but... > > You haven't had heart problems yet. Get back to me after they put > stents in your heart. What makes you think that I will? I am 53 now. Have had an EKG and it showed no problems. Also had some sort of blood test to see if there were markers for heart problems. There were none. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 7 May 2013 21:19:19 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote: > But there are plenty of obese people > who have no known medical problems. My theory is that age and genetic have a lot to do with it. If your family line doesn't have diabetes, cholesterol or heart disease - it takes longer for your body to develop it. Show me an obese 80 year old who is still free of those problems. > Of course the fact that they are obese > might make them not want to go to the Dr. I have seen people say this > online. They get sick but fear the Dr. because they think the Dr. will not > help them unless they lose weight. That's BS. They probably don't have medical insurance. -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "sf" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 7 May 2013 21:19:19 -0700, "Julie Bove" > > wrote: > >> But there are plenty of obese people >> who have no known medical problems. > > My theory is that age and genetic have a lot to do with it. If your > family line doesn't have diabetes, cholesterol or heart disease - it > takes longer for your body to develop it. Show me an obese 80 year > old who is still free of those problems. There have been plenty in my family. Neither of my grandmas had those problems. Neither did my mom's aunts who were obese. They lived well into their 80's and beyond. > >> Of course the fact that they are obese >> might make them not want to go to the Dr. I have seen people say this >> online. They get sick but fear the Dr. because they think the Dr. will >> not >> help them unless they lose weight. > > That's BS. They probably don't have medical insurance. No. It's not BS. I do know people who are afraid of that. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "barbie gee" > wrote in message crg.pbz... > > > On Tue, 7 May 2013, Julie Bove wrote: > >> >> "sf" > wrote in message >> ... >>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 19:49:52 -0700, "Julie Bove" >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Diabetes doesn't "lead to" heart disease. He may have heart problems. >>>> I >>>> don't. Never have. Many diabetics don't. >>> >>> Maybe, but maybe you're like governor Christie and an obese person I >>> know who say they are in perfect health... it doesn't mean it won't >>> happen. Christie got lap band surgery for his "health"... if he was >>> still healthy every other way in reality, he wouldn't have done it. >>> Men are like that. >> >> I would never say that I'm in perfect health. Nobody with diabetes could >> make that claim! >>> >>>> It might be said that there is a >>>> higher percentage of diabetics with heart problems than the general >>>> population but I don't know that to be true. >>> >>> I don't know either, that's what I read recently and I have no reason >>> to disbelieve it because doctors always tell people to lose weight >>> even if they are healthy otherwise. Why? Because excess weight leads >>> to other problems. >> >> No Dr. has told me to lose weight. Not ever. But I was told to gain >> weight >> when I was severely underweight. And my doing that then would be about >> as >> futile as my trying to lose weight now. >> >> Recent studies have shown that overweight people live longer than >> underweight or even normal weight people. I don't think being overweight >> is >> a problem or even the lower end of obese. Certainly if one is morbidly >> obese there can be wear and tear on the joints, the back, etc. I suppose >> the feet could even take a pounding. But there are plenty of obese >> people >> who have no known medical problems. Of course the fact that they are >> obese >> might make them not want to go to the Dr. I have seen people say this >> online. They get sick but fear the Dr. because they think the Dr. will >> not >> help them unless they lose weight. > > maybe because "obese" is not generally the normal state for the human > body? I suspect you've misread the study you're referring to about > "overweight people live longer than...". There are more than a few > qualifying statements in that study. Overweight in the USA IS a problem, > that's become epidemic in my lifetime, and I'm your age. > > I watched some of that Dr. Fuhrman program on "Diabesity" on my local PBS > station recently, and he had an interesting statistic; in the 1980's, no > state in the US had over 20% obesity rate, and in 2010 there was not a > state that didn't have over 20% obesity! What the heck are we doing, > people? And that's the problem. We just don't know. Lots of finger pointing! But nobody knows. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
> "barbie gee" > wrote in message > crg.pbz... >> >> >> On Tue, 7 May 2013, Julie Bove wrote: >> >>> >>> "sf" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 19:49:52 -0700, "Julie Bove" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Diabetes doesn't "lead to" heart disease. He may have heart >>>>> problems. I >>>>> don't. Never have. Many diabetics don't. >>>> >>>> Maybe, but maybe you're like governor Christie and an obese person >>>> I know who say they are in perfect health... it doesn't mean it >>>> won't happen. Christie got lap band surgery for his "health"... >>>> if he was still healthy every other way in reality, he wouldn't >>>> have done it. Men are like that. >>> >>> I would never say that I'm in perfect health. Nobody with diabetes >>> could make that claim! >>>> >>>>> It might be said that there is a >>>>> higher percentage of diabetics with heart problems than the >>>>> general population but I don't know that to be true. >>>> >>>> I don't know either, that's what I read recently and I have no >>>> reason to disbelieve it because doctors always tell people to lose >>>> weight even if they are healthy otherwise. Why? Because excess >>>> weight leads to other problems. >>> >>> No Dr. has told me to lose weight. Not ever. But I was told to >>> gain weight >>> when I was severely underweight. And my doing that then would be >>> about as >>> futile as my trying to lose weight now. >>> >>> Recent studies have shown that overweight people live longer than >>> underweight or even normal weight people. I don't think being >>> overweight is >>> a problem or even the lower end of obese. Certainly if one is >>> morbidly obese there can be wear and tear on the joints, the back, >>> etc. I suppose the feet could even take a pounding. But there are >>> plenty of obese people >>> who have no known medical problems. Of course the fact that they >>> are obese >>> might make them not want to go to the Dr. I have seen people say >>> this online. They get sick but fear the Dr. because they think the >>> Dr. will not >>> help them unless they lose weight. >> >> maybe because "obese" is not generally the normal state for the human >> body? I suspect you've misread the study you're referring to about >> "overweight people live longer than...". There are more than a few >> qualifying statements in that study. Overweight in the USA IS a >> problem, that's become epidemic in my lifetime, and I'm your age. >> >> I watched some of that Dr. Fuhrman program on "Diabesity" on my >> local PBS station recently, and he had an interesting statistic; in >> the 1980's, no state in the US had over 20% obesity rate, and in >> 2010 there was not a state that didn't have over 20% obesity! What >> the heck are we doing, people? > > And that's the problem. We just don't know. Lots of finger > pointing! But nobody knows. No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons, all well documented. One can speculate on which reason is the chicken and which is the egg, but that doesn't mean there aren't already proven behavioral strategies to solve the problem. They're all basically eat less, eat better, and move more. We eat more, we eat poorer quality food, and we move less than we used to. -S- |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve Freides" > wrote in message ... > No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons, all well documented. > One can speculate on which reason is the chicken and which is the egg, but > that doesn't mean there aren't already proven behavioral strategies to > solve the problem. They're all basically eat less, eat better, and move > more. We eat more, we eat poorer quality food, and we move less than we > used to. > > -S- Oh dear GAWD! Don't give me that. Please! Please! I think if I ate less than I do know I would probably starve. For sure I would be malnourished. I already have to take handfuls of supplements each morning and night for what is lacking in my diet. On a really good day I can take in about 1,000 calories per day. Once in a great while 1,100. But that's really rare. Most days I am lucky to be able to get in 800. That's two meals, one of which is toast, 6 days a week. And a bed time snack. Lately I have been having extreme trouble with that snack putting it off later and later and finally resorting to eating a few Saltines because I am just not hungry! There is no way I can eat better than what I do. My stomach just doesn't digest certain things and I can't possibly eat more. If I try to, it comes right back up. I try to avoid that. I do run every bite that I eat through the Cron-O-Meter every once in a while to check the amount of calories I am taking in and where the vitamins and minerals might be lacking. It's almost always lacking in vitamin E. And then I take Metformin which leaches the B12 out of the body. I can not move more either. I am disabled for one thing. I am as active as I can be. If I have to push myself to do more then I risk a Fibromyalgia flare and that can leave me pretty much bedridden or sitting in a chair trying to ease the muscle cramps that take over my body. Better I should do what I know my body can handle and not do something that I know will sicken me unless I have to. And yes, sometimes I have to. The Dr. ordered me to stop working out with weights. I used to do quite a lot of that but all it did was raise my blood sugar. Did not cause any weight loss at all. Did build up muscles and then the muscles got tight. The Rheumatologist said that I didn't have muscles. I had iron. And tight muscles and Fibromyalgia go hand in hand. I am very picky about my food. I read every label on everything I buy. If it has a label. And much of it does not because it is simply produce or dried beans. Some meat. Plain meat that I cook from scratch most of the time. Or cooked hamburger patties from Costco. Nothing added. Also nuts and seeds. I eat things that a lot of people won't because I see the nutritional value in them. Like chia and hemp seeds. I am a big stickler for healthy foods. Just ask my nieces and nephews. If they go out with me for a day, I don't care where we are, they're going to eat healthy food. Yeah, if we're at a carnival, I might buy them a fried food and a sweet, although I will try not to. But they're also going to eat some vegetables. I will find these sorts of things. I will try to check ahead of time. And if I think there might be a problem, you'd better believe that there will be baby carrots and celery sticks in my purse with a little ice pack. I only wish it were as easy as just eating less and moving more. It's not for most people. Yes, there are exceptions. Some people overeat or have eating disorders. These sorts of things may or may not be easy to address. And then of course there are the people who simply don't know how to eat properly. We've seen them countless times on those weight loss sorts of TV shows. Perhaps for some of them it is simply a matter of changing their diets. And exercising more. But in most cases there is going to be a psychological issue that causes them to eat what they do and/or the amounts that they do. How many times have we seen yo yo dieters? I've seen tons. Even if it's only 10 pounds that they lose. Yeah, they can lose but they can't maintain that weight loss. I myself lost 30 pounds back in the 1980's. It wasn't easy to do. I had to eat so little that I was hungry and crabby all the time. I had to exercise to the point of injury. I did this for 3 years. But it wasn't something I could maintain. I snapped. I was tired of feeling exhausted and awful and hungry and limiting what I did and where I went because I didn't want the temptation of food around. I caved. That's what happens to most people. I only eat less now because of my stomach issues. My stomach will only allow me to eat so much. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
> "Steve Freides" > wrote in message > ... > >> No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons, all well >> documented. One can speculate on which reason is the chicken and >> which is the egg, but that doesn't mean there aren't already proven >> behavioral strategies to solve the problem. They're all basically >> eat less, eat better, and move more. We eat more, we eat poorer >> quality food, and we move less than we used to. >> >> -S- > > Oh dear GAWD! Don't give me that. Please! Please! I think if I > ate less than I do know I would probably starve. Nobody said this was directed at you personally. The trends are well documented. Good for me, and good for you if they don't apply to either of us. There are plenty of people who have disabilities or maladies who have my sincere sympathy, and there are also plenty of people who eat and exercise poorly and are capable of making better choices than buying the food they see advertised on television. The simple act of watching less TV would also fix more than a few health problems, I'm sure. -S- |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
W wrote:
>> I buy strong, dark choclate with real sugar, and eat small amounts >> instead. Very low carb. > > Sugar is sugar, and if you buy into the whole Paleo dietary approach, > mankind is not evolved metabolically to eat large amounts of > sugar. -snip- Small amounts does not equal large amounts. > Someone who eats small amounts of sugar-laden chocolate is probably > eating lots of high carb foods that have various wheat flours and > processed foods. So the actual carbohydrate and sugar load is > probably much higher than you think you are getting based on the > sugar content in the chocolate alone. That's too broad a generalization, and plenty of people are capable of the mindfullness to do what's being described here, including me. I eat small amounts of sugar-laden foods pretty regularly and I don't otherwise have much in the way of carbs in my diet, e.g., I'd guess I take in around 100-200 grams of carbs per day most days. I like to have enough that I am well clear of ketosis and feel good, and over the years, I've learned that I feel fine as long as I don't eliminate things like bread and rice from my diet, just keep their consumption moderate. It's pretty easy in my case because I don't have things like bread, rice, and pasta except once a day at dinner, and the same goes for sweets. -S- |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve Freides" > wrote in message ... > Julie Bove wrote: >> "Steve Freides" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>> No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons, all well >>> documented. One can speculate on which reason is the chicken and >>> which is the egg, but that doesn't mean there aren't already proven >>> behavioral strategies to solve the problem. They're all basically >>> eat less, eat better, and move more. We eat more, we eat poorer >>> quality food, and we move less than we used to. >>> >>> -S- >> >> Oh dear GAWD! Don't give me that. Please! Please! I think if I >> ate less than I do know I would probably starve. > > Nobody said this was directed at you personally. The trends are well > documented. Good for me, and good for you if they don't apply to either > of us. There are plenty of people who have disabilities or maladies who > have my sincere sympathy, and there are also plenty of people who eat and > exercise poorly and are capable of making better choices than buying the > food they see advertised on television. The simple act of watching less > TV would also fix more than a few health problems, I'm sure. > And the world is also full of people for which the eat less and move more just doesn't apply. People can exercise while watching TV. They do it all the time. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "barbie gee" > wrote in message hcrg.pbz... > > > On Wed, 8 May 2013, Steve Freides wrote: > >> Julie Bove wrote: >>> "barbie gee" > wrote in message >>> crg.pbz... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 7 May 2013, Julie Bove wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "sf" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 19:49:52 -0700, "Julie Bove" >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Diabetes doesn't "lead to" heart disease. He may have heart >>>>>>> problems. I >>>>>>> don't. Never have. Many diabetics don't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe, but maybe you're like governor Christie and an obese person >>>>>> I know who say they are in perfect health... it doesn't mean it >>>>>> won't happen. Christie got lap band surgery for his "health"... >>>>>> if he was still healthy every other way in reality, he wouldn't >>>>>> have done it. Men are like that. >>>>> >>>>> I would never say that I'm in perfect health. Nobody with diabetes >>>>> could make that claim! >>>>>> >>>>>>> It might be said that there is a >>>>>>> higher percentage of diabetics with heart problems than the >>>>>>> general population but I don't know that to be true. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know either, that's what I read recently and I have no >>>>>> reason to disbelieve it because doctors always tell people to lose >>>>>> weight even if they are healthy otherwise. Why? Because excess >>>>>> weight leads to other problems. >>>>> >>>>> No Dr. has told me to lose weight. Not ever. But I was told to >>>>> gain weight >>>>> when I was severely underweight. And my doing that then would be >>>>> about as >>>>> futile as my trying to lose weight now. >>>>> >>>>> Recent studies have shown that overweight people live longer than >>>>> underweight or even normal weight people. I don't think being >>>>> overweight is >>>>> a problem or even the lower end of obese. Certainly if one is >>>>> morbidly obese there can be wear and tear on the joints, the back, >>>>> etc. I suppose the feet could even take a pounding. But there are >>>>> plenty of obese people >>>>> who have no known medical problems. Of course the fact that they >>>>> are obese >>>>> might make them not want to go to the Dr. I have seen people say >>>>> this online. They get sick but fear the Dr. because they think the >>>>> Dr. will not >>>>> help them unless they lose weight. >>>> >>>> maybe because "obese" is not generally the normal state for the human >>>> body? I suspect you've misread the study you're referring to about >>>> "overweight people live longer than...". There are more than a few >>>> qualifying statements in that study. Overweight in the USA IS a >>>> problem, that's become epidemic in my lifetime, and I'm your age. >>>> >>>> I watched some of that Dr. Fuhrman program on "Diabesity" on my >>>> local PBS station recently, and he had an interesting statistic; in >>>> the 1980's, no state in the US had over 20% obesity rate, and in >>>> 2010 there was not a state that didn't have over 20% obesity! What >>>> the heck are we doing, people? >>> >>> And that's the problem. We just don't know. Lots of finger >>> pointing! But nobody knows. >> >> No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons, all well documented. >> One can speculate on which reason is the chicken and which is the egg, >> but that doesn't mean there aren't already proven behavioral strategies >> to solve the problem. They're all basically eat less, eat better, and >> move more. We eat more, we eat poorer quality food, and we move less >> than we used to. > > exactly. > > I was mistaken about the program being Dr. Fuhrman, it was Dr. Hyman. It's > funny how now we have all these TV doctors, and they're all pretty much > sayign the same thing; eat real food, not processed crap. move more. stay > away from sugar and HFCS. Maximize greens and cruciferous veggies. > (of course, they then pitch their own products while they're at it, but > still...) Except that if you have a thyroid problem, and that is ever increasing in the general population, crucifers should be limited. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:26:44 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote: > Except that if you have a thyroid problem, and that is ever increasing in > the general population, crucifers should be limited. I take pills, but the Dr has never mentioned avoiding or limiting crucifers. Maybe they need to be limited for people who eat them in vast amounts, but it seems like normal consumption is fine. -- Food is an important part of a balanced diet. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
> > proven behavioral strategies to solve the problem. > > They're all basically eat less, eat better, and move more. > Oh dear GAWD! Don't give me that. Please! Please! I think if I ate less > than I do know I would probably starve. For sure I would be malnourished. > I already have to take handfuls of supplements each morning and night for > what is lacking in my diet. On a really good day I can take in about 1,000 > calories per day. Once in a great while 1,100. But that's really rare. > Most days I am lucky to be able to get in 800. That's two meals, one of > which is toast, 6 days a week. And a bed time snack. Lately I have been > having extreme trouble with that snack putting it off later and later and > finally resorting to eating a few Saltines because I am just not hungry! Speaking for, I believe, a great many other RFCers, I can say that the gulf between your world and ours is enormous and will never be bridged in our lifetimes. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Julie Bove wrote:
>>> No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons, all well >>> documented. One can speculate on which reason is the chicken and >>> which is the egg, but that doesn't mean there aren't already proven >>> behavioral strategies to solve the problem. They're all basically >>> eat less, eat better, and move more. We eat more, we eat poorer >>> quality food, and we move less than we used to. >> >> exactly. >> >> I was mistaken about the program being Dr. Fuhrman, it was Dr. >> Hyman. It's funny how now we have all these TV doctors, and they're >> all pretty much sayign the same thing; eat real food, not processed >> crap. move more. stay away from sugar and HFCS. Maximize greens >> and cruciferous veggies. (of course, they then pitch their own >> products while they're at it, but still...) > > Except that if you have a thyroid problem, and that is ever > increasing in the general population, crucifers should be limited. And, Julie, one - not you, "one" - should ask why you have a thyroid problem in the first place. You should also ask, if thyroid problems are on the rise and so is obesity, is there a connection between the two. -S- |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
barbie gee wrote:
> So why do we now have so many suffering from a "metabolic disorder"? > How did they get morbidly obese in the first place? > Have human genetics changed in the past 50 years? That's the $64,000 question. IMHO, a lot of it is traceable to the people who make the food they sell us to eat. If they can find a way to make a food more profitable, why shouldn't they? I agree with them - it's up to us to say where our priorities lie by choosing to eat what's good for us. One could argue until the cows come home about the role of government in regulating what we eat - suffice it to say that, whether or not one would like the government to have a hand in this, one doesn't strictly need the government to do that - vote with your pocketbook at the grocery store, which is what I do. -S- |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "sf" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 9 May 2013 07:26:44 -0700, "Julie Bove" > > wrote: > >> Except that if you have a thyroid problem, and that is ever increasing in >> the general population, crucifers should be limited. > > I take pills, but the Dr has never mentioned avoiding or limiting > crucifers. Maybe they need to be limited for people who eat them in > vast amounts, but it seems like normal consumption is fine. I have never had a Dr.(except for the gastroenterologist and allergist) tell me anything about diet except for one who is no longer there. And he gave me a bunch of useless information like to eat lean ground beef. I have found that Drs. do not understand the interactions of medications or foods. I have had prescriptions sent for me that are contraindicated for the other medical conditions that I have. Cruciferous vegetables and some forms of soy are goitrogens. I have mentioned here many times how after eliminating those from my diet, I am no longer on thyroid meds. And I *was* eating soy in vast amounts, thinking it was healthy. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve Freides" > wrote in message ... > Julie Bove wrote: > >>>> No, that's not true. There are plenty of reasons, all well >>>> documented. One can speculate on which reason is the chicken and >>>> which is the egg, but that doesn't mean there aren't already proven >>>> behavioral strategies to solve the problem. They're all basically >>>> eat less, eat better, and move more. We eat more, we eat poorer >>>> quality food, and we move less than we used to. >>> >>> exactly. >>> >>> I was mistaken about the program being Dr. Fuhrman, it was Dr. >>> Hyman. It's funny how now we have all these TV doctors, and they're >>> all pretty much sayign the same thing; eat real food, not processed >>> crap. move more. stay away from sugar and HFCS. Maximize greens >>> and cruciferous veggies. (of course, they then pitch their own >>> products while they're at it, but still...) >> >> Except that if you have a thyroid problem, and that is ever >> increasing in the general population, crucifers should be limited. > > And, Julie, one - not you, "one" - should ask why you have a thyroid > problem in the first place. You should also ask, if thyroid problems > are on the rise and so is obesity, is there a connection between the > two. > > -S- I have asked and they do not know. Although I am no longer on meds for my thyroid, I do have a goiter. Both of my parents have thyroid problems. My husband has one. His dad had a severe one as did his dad's mom. And now my daughter has one. I am the one who suspected that she did and I took her to my Endocrinologist. It is a good thing that I did. He said that we caught that and her pre-diabetes early. I could see the signs. Sadly, her other Drs. did not and I couldn't even get them to test her for these things. The Drs. at Children's did take note though and said that there was a problem and she needed a follow-up. Only then did her other Drs. take note but they did not give her the proper treatment. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "George M. Middius" > wrote in message ... > Julie Bove wrote: > >> > proven behavioral strategies to solve the problem. >> > They're all basically eat less, eat better, and move more. > >> Oh dear GAWD! Don't give me that. Please! Please! I think if I ate >> less >> than I do know I would probably starve. For sure I would be >> malnourished. >> I already have to take handfuls of supplements each morning and night for >> what is lacking in my diet. On a really good day I can take in about >> 1,000 >> calories per day. Once in a great while 1,100. But that's really rare. >> Most days I am lucky to be able to get in 800. That's two meals, one of >> which is toast, 6 days a week. And a bed time snack. Lately I have been >> having extreme trouble with that snack putting it off later and later and >> finally resorting to eating a few Saltines because I am just not hungry! > > Speaking for, I believe, a great many other RFCers, I can say that the > gulf > between your world and ours is enormous and will never be bridged in our > lifetimes. Great! Just proving my point. One size does not fit all. I just dislike it when people give a pat answer. Well! If only you do _____, then you won't have the problem! Or, if I did it, YOU can! Might work for you. Does not fit all. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"W" > wrote in message
... > I would like to make my own sugar free chocolate from cocoa powder. I don't > want any milk due to lactose intolerance. I don't want any flour, and I > definitely don't want any sugar. I will use Stevia and Erythritol (a sugar > alcohol that metabolizes in a way that is almost zero calories) as the > sweeteners. Are there any good recipes out there for this? > > I have found some decent chocolates online that match the above general list > of ingredients, but they are extremely expensive. I'm looking to lower > cost and also learn about chocolate making. For anyone who cares about the original question, I ended up going with the following: 1) I melted Ghirardelli Premium Baking Chocolate in a double boiler. This chocolate is unsweetened 100% cacao. They already did the messy and difficult steps like mixing in the butter. There is no flour, no lactose/milk, and no sweeteners artificial or not. 2) I add erythritol and stevia, and I'm still experimenting with the best combinations. 3) Stir and pour into chocolate mold. If you like dark chocolate, it's quite yummy, and it causes no indigestion from lactose and no rise in blood sugar. As someone else correctly pointed out, the erythritol crystalizes. The commercial chocolates I have purchased that are nearly identical to the formula above -such as Lucienne's Sugar Free 83% Dark Chocolate - do NOT have this crystalized erythritol. So apparently there is some way to mix in the sugar without having it crystalize. I was able to mix the erythritol into coconut oil and bring it to about 180 degrees F and this melted it completely. Unfortunately, when you melt in the chocolate, it crystalizes again. I also note that the data sheets for erythritol indicate a melting temperature of 120 degrees. I was not able to duplicate that result at all. It would be great if true and would simplify the task of avoiding crystalizing. Does anyone have an insight on how to properly melt erythritol without having it crystalize when cooled with other ingredients? -- W |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
valrhona cocoa powder - this makes tasty hot chocolate! | General Cooking | |||
Sugar Free Hot Cocoa Mix | Recipes (moderated) | |||
New sugar free dairy free Chocolate | Vegetarian cooking | |||
Need exchange of chocolate to cocoa powder | Baking | |||
Sugar Free Hot Chocolate. | Diabetic |